BY ERIC ZORN | E-mail | About | RSS

« Madigan's move on consent law isn't final word | Main | An open letter to the religious community »

Tuesday, January 23, 2007

Illinois: Land of What I'm Thinkin'

Your average car offers a blank rear canvas for personal expression of at least 5 square feet -- empty bumper space, body panels and so on. So why anyone feels the need to express himself in the exact same 6-inch by 12-inch rectangle that the state uses for license plate information has always been beyond me.

License plates are to make it easy for everyone -- especially law enforcement officials -- to identify your vehicle from all others.  License plates are not for you to show how clever or special you are. They are not for you to express your solidarity with some social cause or another.  We have bumper stickers for all that.

The state opened the door to the license-plate-as-personal-billboard nonsense when it began selling custom "vanity" plates in 1980, then "specialty" plates of various sorts in 1988.

So the state deserved to lose in court yesterday against a group of abortion-rights foes who have for years been trying to get Illinois to issue a "Choose Life" specialty plate along with some 40 other specialty plates already in production including "America Remembers,' "Environmental," "Mammogram," "Master Mason," "Illinois Hospice," "Pet Friendly," "Prevent Violence," and "Sporting Series," which advocates hunting.

The money quote from U.S. District Judge David Coar's opinion:

There are no general guidelines or rules on restricting speech in a viewpoint neutral way that would account for denying “Choose Life” on a specialty license plate.  Rather, it  appears that the state wishes to suppress what it considers a controversial idea, discriminating  against a viewpoint with which it does not agree or wish to associate....

(The state) argues that if the “Choose Life” message is permissible, than the state would also have to issue Ku Klux Klan or Nazi plates to avoid viewpoint discrimination.  (But) the fact that speech or viewpoint is unpopular does not exempt it from First Amendment protection.  Indeed, the First Amendment protects unpopular, even some hateful speech. The message conveyed by this proposed license plate is subject to First Amendment Protection.

In other words, this decision opens the door wide for what I'm calling "hate plates" -- specialty license tags espousing any and all forms of bigotry or bile.  More likely, though, we'll see every manner of mainstream advocacy group on the right and the left wanting to use specialty plates to boost their causes and notions.

Ill_plate Which will mean -- I can only hope -- an end to the entire silly business and a return to the days when all cars had the same plates, and when you wanted to express your pro or anti abortion sentiments, your solidarity with hunters or environmentalists or peaceniks or patriots, you'd buy a bumper sticker.

(Pictured, a plate that's good enough for me and for you, too.)


Should Illinois get rid of specialty and vanity license plates?




Rich Miller's readers are already thinking up the slogans they'll be asking for (click here).

Meanwhile, here is more of the legal language from Judge  Coar's opinion (.pdf):

During the 2001-2002 legislative session, the Illinois General Assembly enacted, and the Governor signed into law, legislation authorizing specialty license plates to raise money and awareness for social causes, such as education, pet overpopulation, and Pan-Hellenic charities.... It is undisputed that the reason for not approving (a “Choose Life” specialty plate) was because of the politically controversial nature of the message.....

In order to succeed in a viewpoint-discrimination claim, the message on the specialty license plates must constitute private speech.  (Those asking for a "Choose Life" plate argue) that federal courts have found specialty license plate messages to be private speech, requiring strict scrutiny review for viewpoint discrimination.  (The state argues) that federal courts have found specialty license plate messages to be governmental speech, and thus is not protected by the First Amendment.

The First Amendment requires strict scrutiny review for viewpoint restrictions on private speech. To pass this test, the restriction on private speech must be necessary to serve compelling governmental interest by the least restrictive means available.

  However, if the speech is governmental speech, traditional First Amendment inquiries do not apply. When the government speaks, it may craft its message as it chooses.... (The state) argues that the purpose of the specialty plate program is to publicize messages both the state and private individuals will support and also to generate revenue for the state. (Those who want the "Choose Life" plates)  argue that the purpose is to allow for the private expression of a state-approved message...

The (additional charge for specialty plates) indicates that an important purpose of specialty plates is to allow for private expression, as well as to serve governmental revenue purposes....This factor supports the specialty plate program as a medium for both state and private expressions, and that private  expression is an important purpose for specialty plates.

Although a specialty license plate, like a standard plate, is state-owned and bears a state-authorized message, the specialty plate gives private individuals the option to identify with, purchase, and display one of the authorized messages. Indeed, no one who sees a specialty license plate imprinted with the phrase "Choose Life" would doubt that the owner of that vehicle holds a pro-life viewpoint. The literal speaker of the Choose Life message on the specialty plate therefore appears to be the vehicle owner, not the State. ....While the forum may be public, the speech is private...


(The state's) main argument is that the license plate message is state speech, and thus not subject to First Amendment protection.  However, it has been determined that the added message of specialty license plates constitute private speech, and thus the First Amendment is implicated...Where restrictions or regulations of speech discriminate on the basis of the content of speech, there is an “inherent risk that the Government seeks not to advance a legitimate regulatory goal, but to suppress unpopular ideas or information, or manipulate the  public debate through coercion rather than persuasion.” ...


When a group, such as  Choose Life Illinois, has met the numerical and financial requirements of the specialty plate  program to deny authorization of the Choose Life plates is to discriminate against those who  hold a pro-life viewpoint.  This is impermissible.  Defendant argues that if the “Choose Life” message is permissible, than the state would  also have to issue Ku Klux Klan or Nazi plates to avoid viewpoint discrimination. 

The issue of  whether there may be any limits on the right to have messages displayed under the Illinois statute  does not have to be decided in this case.  The fact that speech or viewpoint is unpopular does not  exempt it from First Amendment protection.  Indeed, the First Amendment protects unpopular,  even some hateful speech. The message conveyed by this proposed license plate is subject to  First Amendment Protection.


And now, a few excerpts from a 1991 Tribune article on license plate history by Jeff Dixon:

  • The registration stickers we just slap on our license plates today once were made of metal and signified the motorist's occupation.
  • Mainly, license plates are about money. According to Motor Vehicle Facts & Figures, license plate revenue from cars, trucks and buses owned by the public makes up 9.9 percent of taxes collected by all 50 states.
  •   Chicago began registering drivers before Illinois did. In 1900, the year the city enacted an 8-mile-per-hour speed limit, Chicago issued round, metal city "stickers." They were the forerunner of state license plates and later would be mounted above the plates - signifying the car owner's status as a banker or doctor or affiliation with a club or organization.....
  • In 1904, Chicago began requiring license plates. ... It was not illegal to hide license plates from sight, and many motorists kept them in a dashboard holder so the police could not easily identify a speeder.
  • Illinois enacted its Motor Vehicle Act in May 1907, requiring license plates statewide. The secretary of state issued metal tags; it was up to vehicle owners to make their own plates out of wood or leather using the tag registration number.... A good-quality plate in those days was made of porcelain."
  • "Permanent," or multi-year, plates where only the sticker is changed each year were first issued by Connecticut in 1937. Illinois began using them in 1979.
  • Plates continued to be made in various sizes and from different materials until 1956, when the then 48 states adopted a standardized metal plate. As a cost-cutting move, a number of states require a back plate only on passenger cars. But Illinois - aware that police cannot always get a look at the back of a car - continues to specify both front and back.
  • The requirement that "Land of Lincoln" be part of the plate dates only from 1954, the first year the slogan was used. 

Slate's Dahlia Lithwick wrote a nice summary of this issue in 2003.



Is the message on a specialty plate really going to change anyone's mind about anything? If someone wants to fatten the state's coffers by paying extra to display a vanity or message plate, I say go for it. As for myself, I have better things to do with the money.

The best reason to get rid of the vanity plates is that the numbers on them are smaller than the regular plates, and thus, harder to read for law enforcement and those victims of hit & run incidents.

Dump 'em.

Based on the Judge's statement, it seems like he's have no problem with a "Kill All Judges" vanity plate.

Personally, I'm going to drum up support for a "The Crowded Movie Theater is on Fire!" plate, since a different judge once said I can't yell that out in a crowded theater, despite the first amendment.

JK touches on the reason we got into this mess in the first place: the state will keep churning out new classes of specialty plates because they can charge a premium for them, and they need the revenue.

I'm curious, though. How much extra revenue does this program generate? Also: how much has the legal wrangling over this latest flap cost the state in wasted AG time?

What'll happen is that the program will be canceled as soon as the first demand for a KKK or neo-nazi plate comes through. Or else we'll amend the state motto to be Land of Lincoln and Jesse Jackson.

A well-reasoned opinion by Judge Coar. The state can't discriminate based on the content of the message. This form of speech is private and not "state speech," under the framework the state has set up. The purpose of plates is to identify vehicles, and we need to get back to that.

Presumably this does affect so-called "vanity" plates. The state could not bar, for example, a "GO OBAMA" or a "MCCAIN 08" plate. But what about "SIEG HEIL"? The state should still be permitted to deny applications for profane or obscene plates, but at some point the offensiveness is in the eye of the beholder. Better to do away with this process entirely.

What if the state went in the other direction and wanted to issue a standard plate, with a standard saying that had to appear on every plate? Potentially unconstitutional. A resident of Vermont successfully argued in the U.S. Supreme Court that freedom of speech included the right not to speak, and that the resident could not be forced to display a state license plate that bore the slogan, "Live Free or Die."

"why anyone feels the need to express himself in the exact same 6-inch by 12-inch rectangle that the state uses is beyond me."

Well, I can easily place a bumper sticker that you don't agree with on your car to promote my agenda and you have to scratch up your bumper to remove it. Me messing with your license plate is tougher...and perhaps a felony?

It is interesting that "Land of Lincoln" is ok. I guess since all plates -- or at least the standard ones -- have it, it counts as government speech but 1954 was only 89 years after the end of the Civil War and towards the beginning of the modern civil rights movement. I do not know that Lincoln was universally beloved, even in Illinois.

There's a distinct difference between the hard-to-read specialty plates, with their various background colors and font sizes, and vanity plates, which allow a person to choose his own combination of letters and numbers, all on the standard background with the normal font size. I agree that the specialty plates should go, but the vanity plates should stay. There's always been a process in place to block messages that may be distasteful (CUBS SCK), obscene (CNLNGS 8), hateful (QQQQ), etc. and it seemed to work well.

If people really want to support their favorite cause, hobby, team, etc., send the money directly and spend the rest on a bumper sticker.

Laws being passed to undermine needed family communication....'Choose Life' is controversial...the Democrats, no...Republicans...no...the newspapers lying...

Quite a day here in Illinois. Can't wait to see what the future brings.

I like Austin's post. Good idea, SCAM. If everybody of that sentiment bought those plates, the roads would be full of us by 04/20. Of course, you'd get pulled over a lot.

Legalize it!

OK, I'm confused: How is QQQQ hateful? I tried google, and all that told me is that the Nasdaq 100 ETF is trading under 4 Qs instead of 3 like it was in the last century.

Is the difficulty in reading the smaller numbers really not offset by the fact that more people are likely to note that it is a vanity plate along with the type of car, then to accurately record the license number?

In general I have no problem with other people paying more for their license plates than I do. On the otherhand I am not bothered by the idea of the state limiting the available plates by topic. That is as long as they do not allow one side of an issue but reject the other. I seem to recall that one of the southern states had a choose life plate but refused to allow a pro-choice plate. That seems to be a clearer first amendment violation than saying they will allow uncontraversial topics and not contraverial ones. Still I have no problem with people identifying themselves as pro-lfe. I don't even have a problem with people identifying themselves as racists. There are advantages to knowing who the racists are.

I was waiting for someone to ask, Don. I remember this being a topic of conversation on WGN a couple decades ago. QQQQ = 4Q. Say it out loud and it should be clear. I actually liked it, but someone complained.

ZORN REPLY -- All this talk about forks? What about other cutlery items?


It took me a little while to get it, as well. Try saying it as 4Q.

I don't know how Illinois takes care of specialty plates (never purchased one for myself while I lived there), but in Texas, a certain amount of the price for the plates ($30 or $40 above the registration fee) goes to a fund to support the plate's cause. I had a plate that supported bicycle safety, and I think $10 went to a fund for bicycle safety training and education materials. Then my car got totaled, and I received the standard-issue Texas plates with my new car.
However, I agree with JK - the specialty plates are much harder to read than standard-issue plates. Plus, you would think that now Illinois would have to support a pro-choice plate, and maybe later a pro-racism or pro-Nazi plate, all because the judge stated that free speech was paramount. It creates a slippery slope.

Lon has a great point--in some ways, it could be beneficial knowing instantly who the racist, rights-limiting, narrrow-minded drivers are, so I can be forewarned on the road. Really, though--a silly program that will devolve and splinter beyond the point of efficiency. Dump it.

License plates are supposed to identify the registered owner of a car. "Specialty" plates make it harder to do so. Out with them.

The lost revenue could probably be covered by adding one number to the Lotto.

don't know why I know this, but the late, great Lawrence Welk's California plate read:

A1 ANA 2

A lot of the plates, I agree, are kind of lame. But I'd be a little more sympathetic to "everybody gets the same plate" if they weren't so hideous: the "Illinois" is this ugly swishy thing, they picked a red and blue that clash with each other, the gradient makes it hard to read the plate numbers at any distance, and the worst part is, the Lincoln face that we're evidently so proud of is partially or totally covered up on nearly every plate out there—unlike other states that have a small logo in the middle of the plate, we don't print that logo in the space between the numbers and letters.

So, ugh. Instead, I have a pair of the nice-looking environmental plates, the ones with the cardinal on them. I also have a plate number that is "personal"—my initials and my graduation year—hence easy to remember for me and for anyone else who needs to know it. I'd be annoyed if I had to give that up just to satisfy y'all's desire not to read an extra bumper sticker.

Of course, the proliferation problem is easy to deal with, and without any drastic solutions like you're proposing: just bump up the minimum number of requests before a specialty plate run is made. 850? Try 85,000. Or even more; set the number right and you'll get two or three or four plates, enough to give a little variety and give people a few choices, but not enough to be annoying or confusing or problematic.

ZORN REPLY -- Oh, so only POPULAR speech is permitted? That seems like the worst possible solution.

"Tough. State government shouldn't be in the business of orchestrating more than 40 charity drives each year any more than auto license plates should be mobile promotional placards." Well, Mr. Zorn, I guess the holiday spirit has passed you by. I guess every single human being who benefits from these millions of dollars should simply receive a memo saying, in your words, "Tough."

ZORN REPLY -- Lots of groups that were late to the "party" have, in effect, gotten the "Tough" memo -- you're too late. Other groups got there first. The state is raising money for them. Go pound sand.

This is ridiculous! Why get rid of something because not everyone can have their say? I remember the adopt a highway program folded when the KKK wanted to buy a mile. Are we so "free" that to avoid insulting one group we stop supporting every other group??? If the KKK wanted a plate, moral diginity would say NO. But should we stop selling every other plate to avoid taking a stand on the issue??? Zorn...lately you've disappointed me.

ZORN REPLY -- So you want to limit free speech rights to those who have "moral dignity" according to Mike? How American of you! You say the KKK is a no-no. What about a group that wishes to celebrate the Confederate part of our heritage with a license plate? A black separatist group or, say, the Nation of Islam? Or what about a group that advocates for an unpopular cause, such as gay marriagerights? Do they all come to Mike's house to get his "moral dignity" stamp of approval?

I couldn't agree with Eric more (and I usually don't agree with him.) License plates are identification tags and should be nothing more. While we're at it, we should get rid of all license plate holders which block out part of the license plates. In an emergency, a license plate should be easily readable and the state easily identified.

I agree that the proliferation of specialty plates has become excessive and confusing and specialty plates should be eliminated.

However, Illinois has offered specialty plates since 1994 when the cardinal plate was first introduced (http://www.ioc.state.il.us/FiscalFocus/article.cfm?ID=215) and I find it interesting that only now, when a group that Eric disagrees with gets a plate, does this become an issue for Eric.

ZORN REPLY -- It's what we in the business call a "news peg," Joe. Something happens to thrust a particular issue into the spotlight so I think about it and comment on it. And, if you read closely, I AGREE with the anti abortion folks that the current practice of not allowing them their plate amounts to unwarranted and unconstitutional censorship -- discrimination against their views.
I am all about content neutrality when it comes to government censorship, and I think the answer to ideas one doesn't agree with is not to shut up those ideas but to speak in favor of the ideas that one does agree with.
Just not on license plates, huh?

License plates should be for quick and simple identification of the vehicle. With all these plates, there are different numbering schemes and colors. You can't even tell what state the car is from anymore!

I'd bet eliminating the plates would save the state millions in administrative costs, and save law enforcement time in identifying cars and trucks involved in crimes. Illinois can't afford these kinds of frills. Get back to basics!

I have been in favor of vanity plates since they became available some years back. This is the use of a standard issue plate where the owner can create their combination of numbers and letters using standard font sizing.

The advent of the specialty plates has fostered numerous problems, such as the free speech issues addressed in the law suit. The readability (EZ2 READ), the clear identification of the issuing state (EZ2 FIND) and/or the expiration date (EZ2 SPOT) are areas that impact both citizens and law enforcement.

I'd like to see all states drop the specialty plates and let the funds be raised by the organizations through the selling of cookies, candy and such to raise the revenues.

Oh, and how about those specialty postage stamps that raise money for a specific program. Another can of worms awaiting to work it's way through the legal system?

ZORN REPLY -- No doubt.

Choose THIS, you zealots. Go buy a bumper sticker and stop wasting the states's time and money and the courts time and money with your whining and griping and transparent little pity party.

While I wouldn't mind seeing the vast majority of vanity plates go the way of the dinosaur, it would be a shame to discontinue the military specialty plates. Veterans have earned the right to display their military status on their vehicles through their service and sacrifice. We should all feel gratitude especially when we see a car with a BZ, SZ or ex-POW license plate.

The biggest problem with the specialty plates is that you are allowed to have the exact same ID on a cardinal plate as someone else has on a regular plate. So if you leave the scene of a crime and someone gets your license ID and forgets to note it had a cardinal or a dove, the wrong person will be identified. Even if you have different plate backgrounds, the letter/number combination should be required to be unique. Also, all should be equally readable.

What about keeping the specialty plates for such things as colleges in Illinois, but dispensing with the opinion-related ones?

This isn't about license plates. It's about the pro-abortion people losing one of their great arguments, "Personally, I'm against abortion and I think it's horrible, but I think it's a woman's right to choose!"
"Choose life" *is* about choosing! And it purposely doesn't address *or* attack abortion rights.
To arbitrarily change this message to "I oppose abortion rights", reminds me of my mother-in-law, who, when she's losing an argument, changes the topic to one she feels more comfortable discussing.
It's a good thing we have bulldogs at the Tribune who are willing and able to attack anyone who opposes Barack Obama and abortion.

ZORN REPLY -- Nice try, Don. This slogan is all about opposition to abortion and it's beneath you to try to argue otherwise. As the Slate article notes: "Most of states with "Choose Life" (plate) programs provide...that the proceeds of these sales go exclusively to organizations that counsel women with unwanted pregnancies to choose adoption. In fact, the legislation in most states expressly provides that any program offering referrals or even discussing the option of abortion is barred from funding."

Hi EZ: This article and your opinion is so politically correct the problem with liberals and their allies in MSM is they really can't argue just ban speech that is too tender for their little ears.The first amendment guarantees free speech for all. The state charges extra for these vanity plates so let it be and stop being a nanny protecting stupid blue state people from themselves, Jerry White, Springfield, IL.

ZORN REPLY -- I have no problem with your speech. No one is trying to ban it. Hang banners in front of your house. Plaster your car with bumper stickers. Stand out on Main Street and wave placards with photos of bloody fetuses at passers by. Be my guest. Really. But let's not use license plates as a forum. We don't need it. Law enforcement doesn't like it. And it opens the door to all kinds of nonsense.

Are we just talking about license plates here? In all reality, if the KKK and Neo Nazi types want to have plates so be it. However they don't have a great history with self identification so I don't think we'll see that petition any time soon. The answer here is simple... Does the special plate program bring in revenue for the state? If yes, keep it! If not, scrap it!

ZORN REPLY -- It brings in revenue for interest programs, some of which are affiliated with the state. The Secretary of State's office says it is revenue neutral -- the extra fees pay for the extra cost of the program.
You might not see a KKK plate, but you might see Confederate flag plates. Or you might see certain more subtle messages on plates designed to signal to others of your beleif system, whatever it is. I could easily see, say, the Minutemen and open borders activists getting deulling special plates; gun rights and gun foes partisans; atheists and evangelicals. There's no logical end so I say cut it off.

How dare you call the efforts to preserve life itself frill & foofaraw? You are an unconscionable individual as is anyone else in favor of murdering innocent lives. I suppose you also support euthanasia. Since when did you become like God to decide who doesn't have the right to live?

ZORN REPLY -- Rey, I've let you post your commercials for your blog here a couple of times too many, probably, so I'm cutting that off now. Please try to contribute to the conversation with on-point comments or I'll have to ban you from comments altogether. We're trying to have a conversation here about the license plate issue, not the abortion issue that evidenetly consumes you.

Today's "billboard" plates make it clear that, at least as far as the states are concerned, license plates are very little about identifying cars and very much about making money. The federal government has been eyeing the immense income-generating potential of license plates for some years, and the proliferation of specialty plates (and the clear message they send that identification of a car by state is not a priority) could be the wedge the government needs to take over the action.

"Choose life" plate proceeds go to organizations that are pro-adoption? That's your argument? One can be "pro-choice" and "choose life" (that's still an option, isn't it?). And, although it's not a popular position at the NOW meetings, one can be "pro-choice" and choose adoption. I have sympathy for you "pro-choicers"; it's getting tougher and tougher to push abortion these days.

ZORN REPLY -- Don, please. The judge in this case saw, as any objective observer can see, that the whole "Choose Life" crusade is a barely disguised stalking horse for the anti-abortion movement. The only problem I have with that is when they try to mislead people about it. "Choose Life" proceeds go to organizations that are ONLY adoption; you will find that "Planned Parenthood" and other pro-abortion rights organizations have nothing against adoption and will refer and assist any young woman who calls and asks for help seeking an adoption. Click here http://www.plannedparenthood.org/chicago/adoption.htm
Polls consistently show Americans opposed to overturning Roe v. Wade and in favor of legal abortion in at least some cases http://www.pollingreport.com/abortion.htm
So thanks for the sympathy, but we don't need it.

License plates are for one thing and one thing only - to identify the vehicle. The color USED to be an easy way to identify the state in which it came from, but no longer. License plate frames cover up important information. I say let's go back to the basics.

Now that people want to oppose the "vanity plates", when before the First Amendment got involved there seemed to be no such issue, one wonders if it is the plates or the fact that messages that the media's PC cultural religion might not accept is the issue.

Funny how acceptable things become not so acceptable when the message is reversed. Or, vice-verse. Nobody got excited about Clinton approving funding for the massive intelligence operation that still collects data secretly on everyone - but George becomes subject to intense scrutiny when his efforts are focused on ME based terrorists. Everybody got excited when Nixon asked about using confidential IRS information back in the 70's; but nobody dropped even a word when Clinton used used access to that same private data from the IRS.

Funny how things change, eh?

To those who point out that vanity plates raise revenue: I read that years ago, when the State of Missouri went ga-ga over vanity plates and different colored theme plates---no one asked law enforcement agencies what they thought. And after awhile it was discovered that cops were making 50 percent fewer stops to check plates because they were so frustrated by the whole thing---with a 50 pecent drop in the revenue generated by such traffic stops. I say we pitch the pretty plates and let the cops design 'em. Or at least examine what, if any, effect these plates are having on the ability of Illinois law enforcement officials to do their jobs.

I live in NY State but grew up outside of Chicago in northwest Indiana (and read the Tribune and still do). Why does this issue have to be either/or? Why not allow specialty and "vanity" plates, but not political/social/religious opinion on the plates? That's a fairly common solution elsewhere.
I have NY's environmental plate (a Roger Torey Peterson-drawn bluebird with the words "Conserve Open Spaces"; some of my fee goes to the state Environmental Conservation Dept. -- not a unique concert among states). I chose not to put special letters/numbers on my plates. It costs still more and would make my car too memorable if I happened to be speeding! I could have gotten the Yankees logo on my plates (or Sabres, or, perish the thought, Bills). But any of those might have prevented me from safely returning to Illinois/Indiana! I could also have chosen to "advertise" my Niagara region of NY with the state-approved picture of The Falls -- all of these with or without personally plate "messages." I don't recall ever seeing NY plate logos for private organizations, except sports teams and universities.

Why should it be impossible for Illinois to develop guidelines for what kind of personal messages and letter/number combinations are allowable, as other states have done? Some common sense wouldn't hurt in deciding what's acceptable. Though I admit that that seems a rare commodity these days, among both persons and governments.

EZ: I basically agree with your point. However, if the purpose of the license plate is truly unambiguous vehicle identification, I must say that it is easier for a casual observer to identify and remember a vanity plate - say as a witness to a hit and run - than a plate with random letters and numbers.

ZORN REPLY -- Unless you're in law enforcement, then your guess is as good as mine on this and we'll both have to yield to those IN law enforcment who have repeatedly been quoted as saying these plates do give officers and citizens trouble.


Aren't we giving up too quickly on this program if indeed it does help people (in at least some)? Shouldn't your latest rant be against political mismanagement of funds then???

I remember taking car trips with my family as a kid and keeping score of all the state license plates we'd find. With the proliferation of specialty plates, kids now need a multi-page scorecard to get through one state.

I would think that the local and state police would be against this due to the difficulty in quickly identifying the state let alone the individual car. There's so many craziness out there with people looking for the littlest excuse to challenge someone. It's one thing to be proud of the message and another to be courting danger. Even vanity plates when they give out too much information leaves the driver vulnerable to any predator on the street. I'm all for keeping it simple.

If we can have "Choose Life", why not "Buy Coke"? We've already sold out our publicly funded sports stadium names.

40 different designs? How is an officer to know when he sees a plate that some pinhead just whipped up on their laser printer? And when those plates go out of state? Nope nope nope.

How about "Save Chief Illini?" Probably time to close Pandora's box before too many more of those swarmy things get out. Maybe we could have a "Swarmy Things Have Rights Too" plate? Or we could put recipies on our plates - Land of Lasagna! Yeah, it gets silly fast, doesn't it? Better go back to Go and start over.

Funny, but the self-described liberal columnist never mentioned the custom license plate issue until a conservative group got their request approved.

Why didn't Mr. Zorn comment when we were issuing 'Peace' plates?

BTW, I have no intention of applying for 'Choose Life' plates. The LAST thing I need is some intolerant liberal trashing my car to further their agenda.

I'm in complete agreement with Mr. Zorns's views, and I'll go one further -

There doesn't seem to be any law enforcement of missing front license plates. I see countless cars with an Illinois rear plate, but no front plate. Are they required or not?

I'm basically with you on this.
But I'd add that some states have elements on standard plates which I find offensive; for example, the Lincoln head on IL, and Mt. Rushmore which SD has used. The latter clearly has a racist history; some people may not connect Abe with the treaty-breaking beneath the Homestead Act. Lincoln freed the slaves, but he was also a racist against Native Americans.
Also, I'll add my voice to those who've already complained about the too-narrow margins on plates, which don't allow for plate holders and allow interference with both the state name and some stickers. There oughta be a law!

These abominations used to be imposed on people by modern-day, would-be Mussolinis. Live free or die. Courtesy of the governor that By which he meant the opposite. The meme and the interblog culture all suggest a single thing: monkey see monkey do. The vanity plate, of any sort, labels it's possessor an idiot.

I think I remember reading (in the Trib) some time ago that most of the specialty plate types lose money for the state, due to the costs of making the plates, and the low number sold.

I am all for getting rid of specialty plates and using one design. Maybe a section of the plate can be left blank for a specialty sticker if desired.

I'm fine with vanity plates, but do think all plates should be standardized as to the font of the characters, and if there are specialty plates, all plate numbers in any state should be exclusive to one vehicle only.

In general, I don't have strong feelings either way.

Most people who have personalized plates are yahoos anyway, so what do I care if they want to show it off?

But if the state is having to spend time and money in court defending themselves over this nonsense, it's time to pull the plug.

They'd better have more important things to do than hanging around in courthouses fighting with a bunch of crybabies.

It is always perplexing to see a bag of garbage tossed from a car sporting environmental plates. I guess they figure that they paid for someone else to clean it up.

Two comments. First the short one: Specialty plates are an ID nuisance and ought to go. Don't lump vanity plates in as they're the same to the eye as ordinary ones. The second (and windier) comment is about the PC part of the debate on vanity plates.

The thing I find frustrating about the PC crowd is the attitude that all speech must always be protected. While I won't get into PC hypocysies (restrictions on peaceful abortion clinic protests) in some of this, the PC problem is that good things can get cast aside with the bad to make sure that no one is even theoretically offended about anything...ever! By the way, that lack of moral distinction offends me, so perhaps a few PC'ers out there could file a suit to protect me from experiencing it again? Thanks!

Anyway, American society has a history of regulating speech with results from good (can't yell fire in a crowded theater) to bad (McCarthyism). Some "common sense" regulation will always be necessary to prevent anarchy so quit whining and tagging every restriction as the worst forms of censorship. Free speech regulation and fixing bad regulation isn't fast or smooth but it has worked for over 200 years so don't panic. It should be OK to let common political views ("choose life" and "choice") slug it out in the public space (although not on license plates because of the ID confusion) while at the same time it should be OK to ban offensive speech (KKK or "Go Cubs"). (Sorry, I'm a SouthSider).

People, courts and legislators should have the moral courage to recall Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's common sense approach to defining porn of "I know it when I see it" and apply common sense to speech once in a while too. Even Bill Clinton once stated that free speech carries obligations and resposibilities. Society depends on its systems (courts, op-ed pages and the ballot box) to perform the necessary balancing acts and, again, these have generally worked fine over time. Maybe if society would wake up and rein in some of the violence and porn in our entertainment industries we would have less child abuse and violence too. The root of the problem is that much of society today lacks the moral foundation for critical thought and unselfish values and that's why we're in this PC mess. Let's not be afraid to call bad things bad and let's avoid those defamations for important political speech like "pro-life" and "choice".

I believe this discussion is missing a key element of the court’s opinion. License plates are government property and under normal circumstances any form of speech on a license plate would be governmental speech, the contents of which the state could choose or restrict without being second-guessed by the courts. The problem pointed out by the court is that – of the 60 or so designs – at least 27 of them are sponsored by entirely private organizations. Those plates therefore address issues beyond any that the state has any interest in. Because the state has issued plates containing a form of expression that is not in any form governmental speech, but is wholly the speech of private organizations, the state has effectively opened a forum for public speech and has therefore lost the power to restrict that speech.

To fix this problem, the state does not have to eliminate all specialty plates. Instead, it merely needs to eliminate those plate designs that contain purely private expressions. If you get Illinois’ first specialty plate, the environmental plate that has the cardinal, the extra money you pay goes to state parks and wildlife areas which the state is responsible for maintaining and potentially expanding or improving. The firefighter plate funds go towards a state monument to fallen firefighters within the state of Illinois. The non-violence plate (with the dove) funds go to programs designed to prevent violent crimes in Illinois. All of these, and many others, are clearly areas in which the state has an important and financial interest.

However, it should be noted that some of the specialty plates that support extremely worthwhile causes may have a hard time being justified as being governmental speech. Among those that come to mind that may be questionable are the mammogram plate (which benefits the Susan G. Komen Foundation), the America Remembers plate (benefiting the September 11th Fund), and organ donor plate (benefiting the Organ Donor Awareness Fund). Does the state of Illinois have an important interest in supporting these organizations financially? Or does the state simply feel that these organizations are worthwhile of support? The first would qualify as government speaking in its own interest, while the second is simply an administrative endorsement of private speech. It is an important distinction, and the point on which the court formed its opinion.

I feel sorry for agents of the law who have to contend with a million and one varieties of license plates. My opinions: 1) Get rid of all specialty plates (in all states), including vanity plates (I have one). 2) Require that lettering be plain and easy to read and omit any patriotic statement. 3) Prohibit license plate frames that obscure any part of the plate's data. 4) Prohibit trailers, bike racks, and similar vehicle add-ons that obscure plates. This could require that bumper manufacturers place trailer ball hitches away from license plate recesses.
Stop me before I get carried away...

GJO'L et al,

It's New Hampster that has "Live Free or Die" on it's plates.

Vermont has "Welcome to the People's Republic of Vermont" on it's plates.

This from a former Irving and Menard boy now living in VT. GO BEARS...........


I'm preparing for a backlash with my comments... I love the vanity plates and the variety of speciality plates. Mine is a double-whammy, being a vanity message on an organ donor plate. I'm not bothered at all by the possibility of the "Choose Life" license plate, its just another person trying to get a message across. How does it bother anyone...?? If law enforcement despised the vanity/speciality plates as much as the message boards suggest, then they should have fought against them in the beginning. I think they are here to stay. I enjoy reading them.

Sure Eric, jump on the "ban all free speech on license plates" bandwagon when the subject is not to you liking. Why is "Choose Life" considered a negative connotation anyway? i.e. "anti-abortion" as if abortion is the positive side of the issue? Why not one to support the disabled in Illinois, which ranks almost pathetically LAST in support and benefits for the disabled community? CHOOSE LIFE will help us to remember and support them as well, even when the politicians fail to do so.

I find it quite interesting that you have just decided now to make a point about vanity license plate when the cause is something you obviously don't support(Pro-Life). First of all the fact that now you advocate getting rid of the whole thing is abbsolutely ridiculous. Sure vanity license plates are a dumb way for people to give money to a cause. If people were smart about donating to a cause, they would give money to the charity directly and notincur any govermental "admin" expense plus it's also tax deductible. What bothers me is the fact you make a stink about it when the cause is something you do not support(Pro-Life) and try to use other excuses to justify it (Police enforcement, etc)You use your words very carefully to note "anti-abortion" instead or "pro-life". Personally i'm pro-choice in my views on abortion but it disgusts me when a journalist uses words to influence a story with their own views. Similar things that are done are "undocumented immigrants" vs "illegal immigrants" and "climate change" vs "global warming".
Your argument would be made much more effectivley if you hadn't instilled your personal views into the story. While your column allows you flexibility to discuss your personal views,it's irresponsible journalism to try to say a goverment program should be abolished because it's allowing a cause to participate that you don't believe in.

ZORN REPLY -- First off, pro abortion-right and anti abortion-rights are the terms that Tribune has decided are as close to value neutral as we can get when addressing this issue and naming the sides. Every side wants to give itself the most positive name possible, a name that claims the high ground.
As far as my timing...I don't know where you would ever get the idea that I favor squelching people's views or rights of expression. Not only do I entertaining literally tens of thousands of comments on all sides of every issue in this public forum every year, but this very column is quite clear that if this program is to continue, then "Choose Life" MUST be included. This is NOT a position that the state or even many of my liberal brethren espouse.
I wrote about this topic now because it was very much in the news this week. Had this been a "Choose Choice" plate that was the subject of a court ruling I'd have weighed in with very same view.
I sure do hope, though, that no one makes a fuss if and when Planned Parenthood tries to get a "Choose Choice" plate. The anti abortion rights folks have, in fact, done just that elsewhere, a display of hypocrisy on the free-speech issue that would be amusing if he weren't so breathtakingly offensive.
Stay tuned, as they say.

Can you see two cars, one with the "Choose Life" plates and one adorned with pro-choice stickers on the Dan Ryan? Talk about asking for a road rage situation!!

I agree with you, Eric. Specialty plates have to go. There as stupid as the honorary street signs of Chicago. They really do nothing but confuse.

If your clever enough, you can use the allotted amount of numbers and letters to create a message on your plate. Let's just leave it at that.

So, since it's a matter of free speech to use vanity license plates, are we going to start seeing plates that spell out "Manboylv" and "nsestlvr?"Really, it's time to return to nonexpressive plates with no variety; just "Illinois" (in block print) and the number. No doves, no cardinals, nothing.

I like the cut of your jib Zorn. But, we'll have to agree to disagree. My stance is that all the plates "approved" are pro-something. No one I know is against remembering Sept 11th, helping children learn, etc. The topics listed in your article are hot button issues. I.E. If you are PRO-something, there is an immediate ANTI-something to disagree. These plates spark controversy and it would therefore be in the best interest of the state not to offer them. Should the state then eliminate all plates??? I still have to disagree. These plates are not hurting anyone except those who can't have their opinions heard. THEY should buy bumper stickers. Let the State decide what they want to put on their plates. People don't HAVE to buy them.

Personalized plates are only offered as a tax raise for the State's coffers.
The State is not going to want to give up the extra money.
Maybe they should only allow standard license plates and raise all plate fees an extra $100.

You once against show your dislike of pro-lifers. Pro-lifers wouldn't care if there were 'choose-abortion' plates. Pro-lifers and Christians have been belittled and libelled by the media for a lot of years. Libs like you love free speech as long as its the speech you want to hear.

ZORN REPLY-- I cut off the last half of your posting because this ISN'T a forum to debate abortion. It's a forum to debate whether license plates should be forums for personal expression. IF they are,if they must be, then I am ALL IN FAVOR OF FREE SPEECH. And I'm getting tired of repeating this point to every whiner and pouter who logs in here, doesn't read the preceding comments and weeps that liberals are opposed to speech they don't like. Read carefully, Witz: I am all for letting you festoon your car from headlights to tailights with whatever social or political view you wish to espouse. I have NO interest in shutting you up. I don't think that license plates should be used by ANY group for this purpose.
Now if you want to go debate abortion with someone, I'm sure you'll have no trouble finding a forum online glad to entertain the topic.

There are too many types of plates on the road. It is not just Illinois though. Why can't there be a federal law pertaining to plates? Let's make it easy for all law enforcement agencies to I.D. plates, especially with so much travel between states.

I'm from California and have had vanity plates since my 1st car at age 16. I have IL vanity plates and I'm on my 5th auto in 12 years here. I make no apologies for them. Not once have I been in a crowded parking lot and went to the wrong car and tried to get in. Yes, I get people who honk and agree with my plates but I also get the bird from ND fans. Everyone else just ignores me or doesn't understand what they say.

Personally, I'd rather know that you are racist, sexist, or whatever-ist and you are SO proud, you chose to spend the extra cash to show that on your car. You may have also had to spend some extra cash to have you car fixed/cleaned every time someone who disagreed with you scratched the paint, threw an egg or dented the bumper.

As Kathy Bates said in 'Fried Green Tomatoes,' "you may be younger but I have more insurance."

Stand tall, be proud and express yourself.

I am often at odds with your thoughts, Eric, given my righty and your lefty tendencies, but I'm with you on this one...the government shouldn't pick and choose "worthy" causes, and bumper stickers and window clings can accomplish the same personal statement without using a vehicle identification sign to do it. What's next...pro-life/pro-choice drivers licenses and state IDs?

So, if I want to support and advertise more than one special interest, might I be able to order an environmental plate for the front of my car and a prevent violence one for the rear?

Actually, I believe that we should discontinue all special-interest plates. While the car owner may get a warm and fuzzy feeling knowing that a portion of the registration fee goes to a charitable cause, the reality is that some special plates are sold in such limited quantities that production costs well surpass the fees collected. It would be in the better common interest if individuals who wanted to support a particular cause or charity simply wrote a check and mailed it themselves.

Ah, history, it’s so fun to revise!

Rep. Jack Franks would have us believe that his epiphany to single-handedly halt approval of specialty plates in Illinois came coincidentally when the Choose Life license plate bill was introduced in 2002.

Then Franks should explain why he voted for these specialty plates during the two years prior: Pan Hellenic (yes, that’s right), Coal Mining, Union Member, West Point Bicentennial, Chicago and NE IL Dist. Council of Carpenters, Black Fraternity, Lewis & Clark Bicentennial, Hospice, Marine Corps, Army Combat Vet, Paratrooper, Park District Youth Program, Professional Sports Team, September 11, Korean War for Motorcycles, and Pet Friendly.

Rep. Jack Franks would have us believe that with hundreds of specialty plates from 49 states and foreign countries on Illinois roads, along with 78 different types of Illinois’s own specialty plates that have been offered for 67 years (beginning with the General Assembly issuing them for themselves), it was only coincidentally when Choose Life was introduced that he decided it was time to stop the specialty plate madness.

And my dear pro-abortion friend Eric concurs, reminding us in his column of the state’s insulting argument inferring that only upon seeing Choose Life plates would the minds of Ku Klux Klan members and Nazis be triggered to get their own plates.

I am still amazed at the depth of hate toward the pro-life movement, in this case, hate that would rather stop a multitude of wonderful charitable giving programs sponsored via these specialty plates - alleviating the tax burden in some instances – than see the culture of life and adoption promoted.

The fact is the other side doesn’t want a competition, which is where they know this will lead if Choose Life plates are approved and they keep whining.

Cross-posted at www.IllinoisReview.com and www.jillstanek.com.

ZORN REPLY -- I'll assume, then, Jill, that you would be supportive of any effort to create a "Choose Choice" or "Women for Reproductive Freedom" plate?

Absolutely, although I must say I find the term "Choose Choice" pretty funny. It's their choice, though, right?

ZORN REPLY -- Then we agree again, as I'm sure we agreed on Lisa Madigan's move late last week. And I believe you and I agreeing three times in one week is a sign of the apocalypse.
Uh oh.

Maybe we can go back to four digit phone numbers and black and white TV, too......

Allow me to propose a solution that retains the extra revenue from specialty plates, while at the same time getting rid of the specialty plate program...and all without compromising anyone's right to free speech:

1. Abolish the specialty plate program, replace with a standare McPlate for all.

2. Abolish the front license plate as they do in over 20 states. This cuts the cost of plate manufacture in half and the savings should easily offset the extra money from the specialty plate program.

3. This leaves the front license plate are free for any message one wishes. You probably have seen in states that only have rear plate that the front plate area becomes the vehicles billboard. See this link for examples:


I have used up my allotment of wisdom for the day.

Yes, one commenter on Rich Miller's blog noted, "And as for Zorn, funny how he decided to chime in on the plate issue once the choose life ones were approved…wow, I sound like Stanek! YIKES!!!"

So the conversions have begun! As Rod Stewart sang the old spiritual:

People get ready
For the train to Jordan
Picking up passengers
From coast to coast

Come on board, Eric!

ZORN REPLY -- I hope you, with your experience in journalism, Jill, set this poster straight about what a news peg is and why commentators weigh in on topics when they do. And I also hope you noted that I did NOT editorialize against the "Choose Life" plate when it was proposed and when you began to litigate for it. Nor am I in particular opposition to it now. I have always been open to dialogue and airing views of those I disagree with, including you (I really regret that our debate on IDE got swallowed up in some re-programming decisions at chicagotribune.com...would gladly repost it if anyone has a copy) and that to accuse me of wanting to silence anyone's views is infamously false.
Like I say, I hope that. But I look on your blog and I see the same tired whining and accusations of hypocrisy from you.

I've thought for years that police officers must hate all those specialty plates. (To underline the distinction once again, I'm not talking about vanity plates--a customized sequence of letters and/or numbers--but about specialty plates--different designs, colors, etc.) I'm with you, EZ.

There's only one problem with your idea of going back to one readily identifiable design, but unfortunately in Illinois it's a deal-breaker: It makes sense.

Dear Eric:

Although I do agree about the specialty plates, I do take issue with how you framed the message of the "Choose Life" plates by saying it meant "in effect ' I oppose abortion rights'". Scrimming the other postings I see that I ought not address that here, but since this is my first time to post anything I hope you will induldge me. Can't you imagine that to a person who believes that a
fetus is an unborn baby that stomping on someone's "rights" is not the intent of their message. Many pro-life advocates have tried to put themselves in the place of someone going through an unwanted pregnancy. To face what it means to bring a life into this world at an inopportune time or with many obstacles in their path is daunting. That is why clinics and services that offer support were created. Please show respect and tolerance to the beliefs of others in your column. Obviously there is a disagreement, and each side feels strongly. Each view has the future and happiness of someone in mind, yet they still come out on different sides. Can't we disagree without putting motives or words into another's mouth?

ZORN REPLY -- It's just a fact that the "Choose Life" plate campaign is animated and supported by abortion foes. I mean no disrespect or intolerance to that side of the debate when I make that observation --- or ever, really. I disgree with them on abortion rights but I always try to assess their views honestly and without distortion.

I am pro-choice, but I opposed specialty plates long before any proposals for one with the "Choose Life" slogan. The reason I am opposed to specialty plates is that plates are for the identification of vehicles. But specialty plates are used to raise money for private organizations. I do not think the State of Illinois should be in the business of fund raiser for private groups.

I hope you, with your experience in journalism, Eric, understand it's your job to set posters straight about your commentaries, not mine.

As to whether you, like Rep. Franks, had an epiphany that there were too many specialty plates on Illinois' roads only coincidentally at the same time Choose Life plates came on the scene, well, ok, if you say so.

ZORN REPLY -- That's between you and Jack Franks, though I can't see why he or anyone would have thought it changed the legal lay of the land one way or the other once you tried to introduce "Choose Life" plates. It certainly wouldn't have changed your legal argument one iota if Franks had or had not allowed, say, the Boy Scouts or any of the other organization who applied after you (I gather) to have their plates. Those would have been just more of the same. The argument against your proposed plate -- again an argument I do not buy -- is not that it's one too many plates, but that it contains too much self expression and implies an endorsement of your cause by the state. So your point is that Franks felt that he could help the state's legal case and/or justify denying "Choose Life" by denying less controversial plates, even though this idea clearly makes no sense. Well, as you say, if you say so.
Regarding your post and its innuendo about my intentions, I was simply urging you to be fair to ME in your blog postings.


Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. No one expected us to sue. They expected us to either go away or continue to futilely introduce bills.

To cover himself later, Franks tried to argue Choose Life was the plate that broke the camel's back, saying it was the plate he decided on behalf of the GA, "enough!"

But there are too many holes.

First, Franks' committee approved (with his aye vote) at least three plates after he said no to Choose Life - Universal Charity ('03), Firefighters ('05), and Paratroopers ('05).

Second, the Senate was even more blatant in its bias. All specialty plates bills in the 93rd and 94th GA went through the Transportation Committee, and received unanimous approval, except two:

1. The Jr. Professional Golfers plate, sponsored by Emil, which went to Emil's executive committee and passed.

2. Choose Life, which went to Obama's infamously liberal Health & Human Services committee and was held without a vote.

They screwed up, and Coar caught them. They're going to lose if they pursue fighting this in court.

They only have two options, sink the entire program or let Choose Life in.

ZORN REPLY -- If indeed they tried to base their objecton on the idea that CL was one too many specialty plates, that was ridiculous on its face AND if they let in plate after CL they totally eviscerated even that feeble argument. I'll say if because I'ld like to check your version of events against Franks', and he's on vacation, I'm told.
I had always understood their only legal argument to be the political content of the plate and the plates as government speech, an argument that deserved to lose as well.
You assessment of their two options is spot on as well. My hopes that they sink the entire program, though, have NOTHING to do with the message behind "Choose Life." If/when they allow that plate in I hope that many other message plates flourish and the state isn't dumb enough to waste my money and yours fighting them in court.

Eric, I'm afraid I have to rescind two of those plates, the Firefighter and Paratrooper. On closer inspection, those bills were gutted and replaced with something else. I apologize.

But Franks did indeed allow and vote for the Universal Charities specialty plate on 5-1-03 (93rd GA, SB1362, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=1362&GAID=3&DocTypeID=SB&LegId=4381&SessionID=3&GA=93) in his committee after he held Choose Life on 1-23-03 (93rd GA, HB10, http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocNum=10&GAID=3&DocTypeID=HB&LegId=142&SessionID=3&GA=93)

All the facts I presented from the Senate side stand.

I looked at Stanek's blog once. I wish I'd've done it at work, where there's an eyewash.

Bubba, I wonder why? You're already blind.

Late in the game here but the specialty plates are just another clever way for the People's Republic of Illinois to squeeze more money out of the proletariat.

License plates have been decorated with awful graphics for years in many states. Nothing wrong with a plain, white plate and big legible numbers.

I do find it interesting that until the Choose Life specialty plate ruling came out there was never a question about specialty license plates in the liberal media.

Just sayin'

I agree, license plates should be plain. The letters and numbers should be raised, and not flat like some other states. There should be no graphics, just a state motto. Florida has more specialty plates than Illinois. That's ridiculous!!!

Note: The First Amendment protects ALL speech, controversial or no. I am pro-life and don't care who is offended by it. It is my car, I pay taxes and I should get to choose.

What's next after making everybody's license plates the same? A communistic state where everyone drives the same car to avoid offending those who cannot afford an SUV or luxury vehicle, but are instead stuck in a Geo Metro?

I agree with CZ. No outcry until conservative pro-lifers wanted to get in the game...interesting.


I have not seen any responses to your column regarding Ham Radio plates.
Back when I was a new Ham, (before cell phones) many States agreed that those of us who had 2-way radio in our cars were filling a very important need in reporting accidents and road issues.
We were allowed to have our Ham Call Sign on our plates as a way for others to identify us, and use us for emergency communications.
In Illinois, it costs $3.00 over the standard plate fee.
Our call sign is in larger letters and numbers than the standard 7 digit license, making us easier to identify.
Can you come up with a down side??

Jim Klick
Crest Hill

I moved from Illinois to South Carolina two years ago, and when I registered my vehicle, I was given a choice between a plate with a Palmetto Tree that reads "Smiling Faces. Beautiful Places." or a plate with an American flag that reads "In God We Trust." The state also offers dozens of specialty plates for everyone from sports fans to amateur radio enthusiasts to conservationists, all at an extra charge.

However, if I would rather have a plate that reads "In Reason We Trust" (still with the American flag, looks just like the Armed Services specialty plate), not only do I have to pay the $30-plus administrative fee, but I also have to prove I'm a card-carrying member of the Secular Humanists. I have met the founder of this group and know how long and hard he fought for that alternative option to the no-charge "In God We Trust" plate, but it seems to me that this remains an issue of questionable separation of church and state tangled with First Amendment free speech issues.

Why can I declare "In God We Trust" for free, but have to pay money to declare otherwise? At the end of the day, this license plate debate seems not worth the effort when there are so many more important life-or-death issues on which to focus. I agree with uniform license plates as a standard; declare your affilations with $3.00 bumper stickers and donate the rest to your charity.

Here's why I'm against the special vanity plate. It seems that just about any college in this state can get a special plate, but from what I've heard the State won't create license plates for out-of-state schools.

As a graduate of the University of Michigan, I would love to have an Illinois license plate with a block M to the left of my number. Certainly, there are enough alumni in Illinois that would purchase a plate, since Illinois is among the top 5 states in the country in terms of resident alumni.

But no, even though Maryland now has U of M plates, Illinois won't do it. One could be cynical and say that there are too many Illinois graduates in state government, but my guess is that the Secretary of State doesn't want to deal with a multitude of college seals and mascots.

Either way, if I can't have a U of M plate, then get rid of special plates.

The comments to this entry are closed.

More about Eric Zorn


•  The Tweet of the Week 2015 Compendium
•  Transition time
•  Open Thread: The Weeks In Review
•  Fine lines final four
•  Two takes on medical tokes
•  Missed it by that much
•  16 is the new 21
•  Fine lines


• `The Office'
• American Idol
• Anthony Porter Case
• Blago trial
• Books
• Chicken!
• Commenters
• Common Sense Caucus
• Current Affairs
• Film
• Fine Expressions
• Fine Shots
• Food and Drink
• Friday Night Lights
• Grey's Anatomy
• How Long Does it Take?
• Jessica Reynolds
• Mad Men
• Megan Crepeau
• Month in Review
• Obama
• Peterson case
• Predictions
• Prickly Pair Podcasts
• Race to the Slop
• Religion
• Rhubarb Patch
• Rules for commenting
• Somebody Nobody Asked
• Speaking of Sports
• Spit takes
• Sports
• Television
• The Killing
• This I No Longer Believe
• Trayvon Martin case
• Video Commentaries
• Webliographies
• Weeks in Review
• YaGotta

December 2015 posts
Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 31

Browse archives

Chicago Tribune Media Group